Hmmm. I was planning on registering a protest vote by checking the box for Ted Cruz. Wanted to let Donald know we aren't all going to just get on board, and we still have a choice, however terrible a lesser of two evils choice it is. Now you make me consider a third terrible choice. I already know my wife, whose family left communism to come here, won't vote for commie Bernie no matter what. Bernie might seem like the least of three evils, but I don't know. I suspect he'd be incompetent in a way that might make Obama seem like a reasonably competent manager, and of course ideologically, he'd have probably the worst of the three's foreign policy, which is where a President really has authority and power. Then there's the Supreme Court. He'd be at least as bad as Hillary, and maybe worse, if that's possible.
No easy options this time, and I was- was- excited about California finally mattering in the primary a while back. Oh well.
I see the expected Supreme Court vacancy filling as the most important voter decision-guider. Because of the life tenure. Which was intended by the Founders to encourage independence in the Court, but which has cemented biased Court opinions for decades when justices have been appointed who have ruled by emotion and result rather than logic and law and the Constitution.
Because: The liberals are running out of things to challenge, things upheld with little or no objection by the liberal justices on the Court. When the libs are down to pushing for trans-people's access to public restrooms* I cannot even imagine what social custom they will target next.... Because they have the blood-lure of killing the widely-accepted customs that unite our society on their baying tongues and will not be satisfied until someone, somewhere, says, "No."
* a solution to a problem that no one knew existed -- genuine trans-people, those who have had their "parts" altered, could use their adopted restroom facilities without challenge. No one knew or cared who was behind the stall door! It's the "fluid" people, ostensibly one sex on Monday and the other (or a third?) on Tuesday, for likely nefarious purposes, whom the "normal" people fear for the sake of their little ones.
I see the expected Supreme Court vacancy filling as the most important voter decision-guider. Because of the life tenure. Which was intended by the Founders to encourage independence in the Court, but which has cemented biased Court opinions for decades when justices have been appointed who have ruled by emotion and result rather than logic and law and the Constitution.
Do you see Hillary as more or less dangerous than Sanders in this role? He at least seems to understand that the 2nd Amendment isn't something that can be blithely ignored. I'm not saying he's a swell guy with great ideas. I am just saying he is a principled, honest man (who earnestly believes in the economic system that has caused more poverty and misery than anything previously known to man), and that Hillary is an unprincipled, lawless, grasping person. I'd take the former over the latter any day.
Second Mike here. Clinton is actually a lot closer to me on foreign policy than either Sanders or Trump. But she's corrupt, wicked, and opposed to the way of life of my part of America. Sanders isn't an ideal choice either, but he's honest and that means a lot.
7 comments:
That would be entertaining.
I did it in SC.
I voted for him here in Georgia, too.
Hmmm. I was planning on registering a protest vote by checking the box for Ted Cruz. Wanted to let Donald know we aren't all going to just get on board, and we still have a choice, however terrible a lesser of two evils choice it is. Now you make me consider a third terrible choice. I already know my wife, whose family left communism to come here, won't vote for commie Bernie no matter what. Bernie might seem like the least of three evils, but I don't know. I suspect he'd be incompetent in a way that might make Obama seem like a reasonably competent manager, and of course ideologically, he'd have probably the worst of the three's foreign policy, which is where a President really has authority and power. Then there's the Supreme Court. He'd be at least as bad as Hillary, and maybe worse, if that's possible.
No easy options this time, and I was- was- excited about California finally mattering in the primary a while back. Oh well.
I see the expected Supreme Court vacancy filling as the most important voter decision-guider. Because of the life tenure. Which was intended by the Founders to encourage independence in the Court, but which has cemented biased Court opinions for decades when justices have been appointed who have ruled by emotion and result rather than logic and law and the Constitution.
Because:
The liberals are running out of things to challenge, things upheld with little or no objection by the liberal justices on the Court. When the libs are down to pushing for trans-people's access to public restrooms* I cannot even imagine what social custom they will target next.... Because they have the blood-lure of killing the widely-accepted customs that unite our society on their baying tongues and will not be satisfied until someone, somewhere, says, "No."
* a solution to a problem that no one knew existed -- genuine trans-people, those who have had their "parts" altered, could use their adopted restroom facilities without challenge. No one knew or cared who was behind the stall door! It's the "fluid" people, ostensibly one sex on Monday and the other (or a third?) on Tuesday, for likely nefarious purposes, whom the "normal" people fear for the sake of their little ones.
I see the expected Supreme Court vacancy filling as the most important voter decision-guider. Because of the life tenure. Which was intended by the Founders to encourage independence in the Court, but which has cemented biased Court opinions for decades when justices have been appointed who have ruled by emotion and result rather than logic and law and the Constitution.
Do you see Hillary as more or less dangerous than Sanders in this role? He at least seems to understand that the 2nd Amendment isn't something that can be blithely ignored. I'm not saying he's a swell guy with great ideas. I am just saying he is a principled, honest man (who earnestly believes in the economic system that has caused more poverty and misery than anything previously known to man), and that Hillary is an unprincipled, lawless, grasping person. I'd take the former over the latter any day.
Second Mike here. Clinton is actually a lot closer to me on foreign policy than either Sanders or Trump. But she's corrupt, wicked, and opposed to the way of life of my part of America. Sanders isn't an ideal choice either, but he's honest and that means a lot.
Post a Comment